Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Why didn't you post this yesterday?

Posted By: sam on 2008-11-05
In Reply to: Why don't we all just come together and show our love - for this great country?

Or the day before? Didn't feel the love until Obama got elected?


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

He didn't look too messianic yesterday
He started repeating himself, got his tang all tungled up and generally looked just exactly like the carefully scripted Pelosi-puppet that he is.
Until yesterday, I never saw you post here at all. sm
The moderator has posted several times that as long as the posts remain respectful, we may cross post.  Not all liberals, by the way, believe in abortion.  This is an ethical issue, not a political one, though it does seem that the liberals fly the abortion banner high and proud. 
thanks, Marmann, I miss JTBB, hasn't post since yesterday evening, you o.k?..nm
nm
I guess I didn't take B's post that way. SM
I use God as a comparison when I am really trying to make a point. I think that is what was going on, but only B can answer that.  At any rate, I agree with B.
Perhaps you didn't READ my post
I said -- keep it the hell out of politics.
You're welcome to claim whomever you'd like as your Saviour in the privacy of your own home and the community of your own church.
Brunson didn't post that. someone else did.
.
You didn't read my post
I was referring to people I talk to, as I stated.   I don't generally talk to Churchill or Chomsky.  In fact, I don't even pay much attention to them, nor should you.  Just as I don't pay much if any attention to crazy right-wingers.  Just common sense.
FYI--I didn't post the comment above this.sm
I think this was a mistake. Is this you Observer?

P.S. If there is another person posting with the Democrat moniker let me know and I will change mines.
I didn't post this.....someone used my initials...sm
x nice try.
Why didn' you post a message?
I'm not sure why you wrote Henry Kissinger but then didn't write anything. If Obama can come up with when Henry Kissinger said that to him I will take back my original post. All I'm saying is Kissinger was interviewed and he said he never said it. You should take him at his word. If Obama says something I believe him. Maybe Obama really believed Kissinger said this.

Obama says he cares about the people. He cares that people needs jobs, decent healthcare, and not to lose their homes. He said he is going to work towards getting this fixed. I believe him.
link didn't post
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/30/palin_pity/
You didn't address your post
to Christians exclusively. If that was what you wanted, maybe you should take it over to the faith board, will everyone will gush and agree with you.
It didn't post for some reason; will try again

Very Good for Today: cartoon from 50 yrs ago "Count your Isms"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75ylAUXY


Does anyone else have this happen as well?  It says it posted successfully, & doesn't show up.  Just curious.


Thanks!


 


Actually, you didn't read the post then
Didn't say she was a liar. There is a difference with calling someone a liar and saying you don't believe them.

She over did it with the drama. Sure maybe she donated to charities on her own, but all the drama about contributing to the greater care, organizing for charity, painted and nailing carpeting in "poverty stricken homes" as her "gift to her children" oh yes, all while she didn't have a pot to you know what in, all while making only 5.30 an hour. And on top of all that she moved in with her parents to take care of her dying father while herself working full-time as a supervisor several states away (wow what a commute each day that must have been). On and on an on an on. Could it have happened? Sure anything could happen. Do I believe it personally? Not in my lifetime. But that's not saying it didn't happen. Just sounds like she should be awarded the model citizen of the century award.

BTW - there is a clear difference between saying you don't believe someone and them attacking you personally.

So I'd boo-hoo on yourself.
Guess you didn't see the post I did below

showing that Bush tried to regulate the industry as far back as 2001, but the dems would have none of it....those most opposed were all on the "take"; i.e., getting thousands of dollars in contributions from FM/FM.....or don't you believe it even when it comes from their own mouths?


Open your eyes and listen, or do you need a hearing test?


you really didn't need to post describing yourself
we had enough of you yesterday. Sometimes it's best to leave things alone and not comment at all.
Sorry, the link didn't post.....
In a nutshell, Hawaii has passed "Islam Day" law....

Where is their "Christianity Day"?

Where's the loud mouth ACLU on this?

This country is heading to he!! in a handbasket!


You obviously didn't really read her post...what's happened
You used to be a pretty straightforward poster even though we were often at odds.  Now you seem nasty.
I didn't really have an intention. That post just caught my eye. nm

You didn't respond to Yepper's post.

I don't feel the need to make the choice. It's a child, not a choice. n/t


Ooops, I just reposted this. I didn't see your post. sm
Cutting Medicaid and student loans but has hundreds of billions while throwing hundreds of billions at Iraq.
That's the second time you addressed something I didn't post. sm
I thought the Chickenhawk article was brilliant though.  I wish I had posted it.
Didn't quite catch the drift of this post.
su
I didn't post the original message
just love how people don't post facts, whether McCain or Obama supporter.
FYI - her original post didn't contain *****, it was changed
x
your post explains why you didn't think it was funny
Crats just don't have a sense of humor like the rest of us. PS - I am a liberal. If there is one equally as funny about the conservatives I would post. But pretty much all of these are true - and funny.
Evidently you didn't read the post....
no one said a black person wouldn't vote for anyone but Obama (HELLO.....Steele, etc., etc.).
My post just zooooomed right past you didn't it?
Why am I not surprised? I said that both of them were moronic posts, in case (what do I mean, in case?) you didn't catch that.

As for the reference to "par", I take it you golf. Then you'll understand this: Eat my niblick.
I didn't bother to read your post....
I couldn't get past your heading "staying on the subject" .... the only "subject" is you..... Obama's "subject". You probably don't get that either! LOL
OMG, I hope my post didn't look like I thought Obama did it
I know he didn't. He's a very decent person and respectful and when something is wrong he'll say so (and will have words with his people if they cross the line). I wasn't sure who did it. The news said they were going to tell us who is responsible but they never did (go figure). I just think its a horrible thing to happen to anyone and DH and I were talking tonight about when did all the nasty things like this start happening. I'm sure 100 or so years ago it wasn't bad like this. I just think it's a horrible world when someone is running for an office and people think its okay to do this. How low will they go?
No, your post didn't make it sound like you thought
he was responsible, I'm only imaging how it is going to somehow get back on him. It is a terrible thing to happen to anybody. Some people just need to step back and get a life. :)
Didn't the Washington Post back Obama?

My math isn't wrong. Gov. Blago+Mrs. Blago (real estate agent, or did you forget?)+Rezko=Obama. Can I make it any clearer?


 


You evidently didn't read my post - it was not a question
of if you think he's done harm. He has, it's a fact and no matter how much you want to cover it up you can't. You think bowing to our enemy, telling other countries we are selfish, and that we don't want our jobs so they can have them, tripling our deficit (nothing Bush had to do with -sorry can't pull that crap anymore), lining the pockets of his rich friends and CEOs, filling his cabinet with unqualified crooks and thieves, and the list goes on and on and on. And that's just the first 90 days. So the question was how many more years will it take to undo the harm. You can keep drinking the kool-aid thinking socialistm/communism is fine. It is not. Even the other countries keep telling him - "Don't go there, it is not a path you want to take", while other country leaders who are telling him not to go there are saying "why aren't you listening to us. We've been there and done that and it doesn't work".

Hence, how many more years will it take to undo the harm he has already done (and its only been less than 90 days). My guess is at least 2. It's going to be hard once he's out of office, but I do have faith the country will bounce back as long as we have some decent politicians in the office and take congress out from the control of the crats.
I didn't post a link, I posted a smard alek

reply that I think got deleted.......not unjustly.  It was dripping in sarcasm.  LOL  I believe the article it is on Yahoo news though, my husband said something about it.  I didn't post a link to it, probably someone else.


We can all agree to disagree.  What I would like for everyone to do is research the facts for themselves.  I've always felt like you can belive nothing you hear and only half of what you see.


I'm not against immigration and I don't think Lou Dobbs is either. I'm all for LEGAL immigration.  I even researched Mexico's immigration requirements and that ought to be an eye-opener for anyone who wants to compare immigration policies.  I am dead set against ILLEGAL immigration.  What I don't understand is what about ILLEGAL do people not underestand.  AND both Obama and McCain are in favor of giving people who have broken the law a "path to citizenship" translated means amnesty.  That didn't work too well  under Reagan and it won't work now which is one thing I have against both candidates because the path to citizenship is one thing they agree on but you don't hear either one of them talking about it.  That's an issue to  me.  No need to worry about terrorists when our borders are wide open and terrorists could stroll right on across our borders any time they so desired and neither NEITHER of these candidates have anything to say about that.  Why?  I'll tell ya, they both don't want to offend the Latino vote and I don't think they care whether the voters are legal or not.


backwards, you didn't read the post, just the headline PAY ATTENTION
loser
Guess you didn't read the post I made from a few days ago.

Sorry, but I haven't been able to post lately due to some problems, but the FOIA report I posted and said to pay attention to certain pages....Clinton KNEW there were WMD's in Irag in 1996! Did he do anything? Nope. He left the country he was visiting right before a bombing; i.e., he knew it was going to happen. The jist I got of the report was that he knew and did nothing.


Did you read that report?  Don't want to dredge up old presidents but you seem to do it every chance you get, so I just have to respond to that. Bush also knew but did nothing because the CIA,DOJ, FBI and whatever other departments were to keep him informed but never worked together on anything so he got conflicting reports all the time. Was he a mind reader? Doubt it or 911 would not have happened.


Sorry, but this post does not hold water IMHO.


Thanks to you both; yesterday's
it was time to come out of anonymity so we can better identify the trolls in order to ignore them. So thanks to Democrat for making the case.
Actually, I think that is what JM did say yesterday. nml
.
Yesterday's interview on

Matt Cooper pretty much spelled it out.  You might not like it, though, because it still holds your boys accountable for their actions.  So by all means, read at your own risk.


MSNBC.com


Transcript for July 17
Matt Cooper, John Podesta, Ken Mehlman, Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein


NBC News


Updated: 1:57 p.m. ET July 17, 2005


PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS."


Sunday, July 17, 2005


GUESTS: Matt Cooper, White House Correspondent, Time Magazine; John Podesta, President and CEO, "Center for American Progress" and Former Chief of Staff, President Bill Clinton; Ken Mehlman, Chairman, Republican National Committee; Bob Woodward, Washington Post and author, "The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat" and Carl Bernstein, former Washington Post Watergate Reporter


MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert, NBC News


MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: the investigation into the leak which identified Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. This Time magazine reporter says his source released him from his pledge of confidentiality, allowing him to avoid jail by testifying on Wednesday. What did he say to the grand jury? He'll discuss it for the first here this morning. Our guest: Matt Cooper.


Then Newsweek magazine quotes Karl Rove as saying it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency, who authorized the trip." What now for President Bush's deputy chief of staff? With us, Rove's former deputy, now chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, and President Clinton's former chief of staff, John Podesta.


And 33 years ago, another famous source, Deep Throat, provided information which brought about the resignation of Richard M. Nixon. His identity has now been revealed and his story now chronicled in a new book: "The Secret Man." With us, Watergate reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.


But, first, joining us now is Matt Cooper of Time magazine. Welcome.


MR. MATT COOPER: Morning, Tim.


MR. RUSSERT: This is the cover of your magazine: "Rove on the Spot," subtitled "What I Told the Grand Jury," by Matthew Cooper. And here is an excerpt from your article, which will be available tomorrow in Time magazine.


"So did [Karl] Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that [Joe] Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him?"--to Niger. "Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the `agency' on `WMD'?"--weapons of mass destruction. "Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know."


For the record, the first time you learned that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was from Karl Rove?


MR. COOPER: That's correct.


MR. RUSSERT: And when Karl concluded his conversation with you, you write he said, "I've already said too much." What did that mean?


MR. COOPER: Well, I'm not sure what it meant, Tim. At first, you know, I thought maybe he meant "I've been indiscreet." But then, as I thought about it, I thought it might be just more benign, like "I've said too much; I've got to get to a meeting." I don't know exactly what he meant, but I do know that memory of that line has stayed in my head for two years.


MR. RUSSERT: When you were told that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, did you have any sense then that this is important or "I better be careful about identifying someone who works for the CIA"?


MR. COOPER: Well, I certainly thought it was important. I wrote it in the e-mail to my bosses moments later that has since leaked out after this long court battle I've been in. You know, I certainly thought it was important. But I didn't know her name at the time until, you know, after Bob Novak's column came out.


MR. RUSSERT: Did you have any reluctance writing something so important?


MR. COOPER: Well, I wrote it after Bob Novak's column had come out and identified her, so I was not in, you know, danger of outing her the way he did.


MR. RUSSERT: You also write in Time magazine this week, "This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor. In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversation with [Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a special waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recorded an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew"--of--"or played any role the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, `Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."


Did you interpret that as a confirmation?


MR. COOPER: I did, yeah.


MR. RUSSERT: Did Mr. Libby say at any time that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?


MR. COOPER: No, he didn't say that.


MR. RUSSERT: But you said it to him?


MR. COOPER: I said, "Was she involved in sending him?," yeah.


MR. RUSSERT: And that she worked for the CIA?


MR. COOPER: I believe so.


MR. RUSSERT: The piece that you finally ran in Time magazine on July 17th, it says, "And some government officials have noted to Time in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger..."


"Some government officials"--That is Rove and Libby?


MR. COOPER: Yes, those were among the sources for that, yeah.


MR. RUSSERT: Are there more?


MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into it, but it's possible.


MR. RUSSERT: Have you told the grand jury about that?


MR. COOPER: The grand jury knows what I know, yes.


MR. RUSSERT: That there may have been more sources?


MR. COOPER: Yes.


MR. RUSSERT: The big discussion, Matt Cooper, has been about your willingness to testify...


MR. COOPER: Sure.


MR. RUSSERT: ...before the grand jury. And let's go through that. This was Wednesday, July 6, Matt Cooper talking to the assembled press corps.


(Videotape, July 6, 2005):


MR. COOPER: This morning, in what can only be described as a stunning set of developments, that source agreed to give me a specific, personal and unambiguous waiver to speak before the grand jury.


(End videotape)


MR. RUSSERT: Now, Karl Rove's attorney has spoken to The Washington Post. "[Karl Rove's attorney, Robert] Luskin has said that he merely reaffirmed the blanket waiver by Rove ...and that the assurance would have been available at any time. He said that [Matt] Cooper's description of last-minute theatrics `does not look so good' and that `it just looks to me like there was less a desire to protect a source.'"


MR. COOPER: Well, can I back up a little bit, Tim? For two years, you know, I have protected the identity of my sources. As you know, I was in a rather infamous court battle that went through all the courts in Washington, right up to the Supreme Court, and we lost there with a special prosecutor trying to get me to disclose my source. My principle the whole time was that no court and no corporation can release me from a pledge of confidentiality with my source. And so even after Time magazine, over my objections, handed over my notes and e-mails, which included, really, everything I had and identified all my sources, I still believed that I needed some kind of personal release from the source himself.


And so on the morning of that clip you just saw, my lawyer called me and had seen in The Wall Street Journal that morning Mr. Rove's lawyer saying, "Karl does not stand by any confidentiality with these conversations," or words to that effect, and then went on to say, "If Matt Cooper's going to jail, it's not for Karl Rove." And at that point, at that point only, my lawyer contacted Mr. Rove's lawyer and said, you know, "Can we get a kind of personal waiver that applies to Matt?" And Mr. Luskin and he worked out an agreement and we have a letter that says that "Mr. Rove waives confidentiality for conversations with Matt Cooper in July 2003." So it's specific to me and it's personal, and that's why I felt comfortable, only at that point, going to testify before the grand jury. And once I testified before the grand jury, then I felt I should share that with the readers of Time.


MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Luskin, Rove's attorney, is suggesting that you had the same waiver throughout the last two years, and only when you were confronted with going to jail did you, in effect, decide to compromise your source or not protect your source.


MR. COOPER: Well, I protected my source all along. I don't maintain that I haven't. I have all the way along, and that's why we went to the Supreme Court. That's why I stood by the source even after Time had disclosed my documents. We went to Rove only after seeing his lawyer, in some sense, invite us to, in that quote in The Wall Street Journal. My lawyers and the editors at the time did not feel it was appropriate for me to go and approach Rove about some kind of waiver before then.


MR. RUSSERT: In your piece, as I mentioned, you said "some government officials," and you said it may be more than just Rove and Libby. Did you get waivers from those additional sources when you testified before the grand jury?


MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into anything else, but I don't--anything I discuss before the grand jury, I have a waiver for.


MR. RUSSERT: Norman Pearlstine, editor in chief...


MR. COOPER: Sure.


MR. RUSSERT: ...of Time magazine, authorized the release of your e-mails and notes to the prosecutor. Pearlstine said this: "I found myself really coming to the conclusion that once the Supreme Court has spoken in a case involving national security and a grand jury, we are not above the law and we have to behave the way ordinary citizens do." Do you agree?


MR. COOPER: In part. I mean, I think Norman Pearlstine made a very tough decision. I spent a lot of time with him and I admired the way he made it. I disagreed. I thought we should have at least, you know, gone forward, gone into civil contempt. I would have been willing to go to jail. I think we should have, you know, held on a little longer, but that's a reasonable, you know, disagreement between people.


MR. RUSSERT: Now, he came to Washington, Pearlstine, and some other editors from New Work and met with the Washington bureau of Time magazine.


MR. COOPER: Sure.


MR. RUSSERT: At least two correspondents produced e-mails saying, "Our sources are now telling us they will no longer confide in Time magazine. They will no longer trust us to protect our sources." Is that going to be a long-term problem for your magazine?


MR. COOPER: Well, I think, you know, Time will have to, you know, reassure confidential sources that we're going to continue to rely on them and continue to protect them. You know, this--Tim, I think the important thing is here that one aberration in this case was it went all the way to the Supreme Court, and it was then--you know, Time did decide in this case to turn over the notes. Now, Pearlstine has said that in other cases he might not. I think the important thing to remember here is that, you know, the reporters of Time will keep their word. I kept my word for two years. I didn't feel like any court or corporation could release me from that confidence, and I kept my word and so only spoke with the grand jury after I received that written personal waiver from my source.


MR. RUSSERT: You are going to testify this week before Congress for a shield law. Explain that.


MR. COOPER: Sure . Well, Tim, you know, this is the 12th day, I believe, of my colleague Judith Miller from The New York Times being in jail in this investigation because she did not get a waiver that she feels comfortable with and she's protecting her sources. There's incredible aberration, Tim. Forty- nine states have some kind of protection for journalists and their confidential sources, but there is no protection at the federal level. And so in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats have put forward legislation in Congress to create some kind of protection for whistle-blowers and confidential sources and other people who want to come forward to the press so there'd be some kind of federal law, too.


MR. RUSSERT: What's your biggest regret in this whole matter?


MR. COOPER: Well, I'm not sure I have that many. I mean, I believe the story I wrote was entirely accurate and fair, and I stand by it. And I think it was important because it was about an important thing that was going on. It was called A War on Wilson, and I believe there was something like a war on Wilson going on. I guess I'd be a little more discreet about my e-mails, I think. I'm an object lesson in that, you know, e-mails have a way of getting out.


MR. RUSSERT: Will this affect your career as a journalist?


MR. COOPER: I don't think it should, Tim. I kept my word to my source. I only spoke after I got a waiver from that source. That's what other journalists have done in this case. I don't think it should.


MR. RUSSERT: How did you find the grand jury?


MR. COOPER: I was surprised, Tim. You know, I'd heard this old line that grand jurors are very passive, that they'll indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor tells them. I thought this grand jury was very interested in the case. They--a lot of the questions I answered were posed by them as opposed to the prosecutor. I thought they were very involved.


MR. RUSSERT: Where do you think it's heading?


MR. COOPER: You know, I really don't know, Tim. I've been, you know, involved in this case as anyone, I guess, for a couple of years now, and at times I think it's a very big case, at times I think it's, you know, politics as usual and not going to be that big a case at all. I just don't know.


MR. RUSSERT: And we'll find out. Matt Cooper, we thank you very much for joining us and sharing your views.


MR. COOPER: Thank you, Tim.


I saw him on CNN yesterday. Here's the video.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Seymour_Hersh__U.S._involved_in_0813.html


I found it very interesting, and you're right, he's yet to get it wrong.


I saw this yesterday . Wonder if Fox will broadcast this?
zz
check yesterday.
nm
it was on woldnetdaily yesterday & others
Not that y'all would know anything about sources other than MSLSD and the gang.
Yesterday's news.
su
I'm not sure where it is, but one of your friends from yesterday
kept bugging Debbie about it. Maybe she knows where the rule is.

I think it used to be that we were asked to post links, so as to save disk space for the MTStars website, something like that.

That way, we can click over to read what is posted. Also, it gives you backup to your posts for verfication. Much better to see who's point of view it is, and from what website in your link.

Does anybody know if this rule still exists under the new management??
Wow, I posted this yesterday and...
Today there are no comments? Fascinating. I thought surely someone would leap to McCain's defense and/or find a way to justify his behavior.
We were talking about this yesterday...sm
....and thinking it will take years to implement, but still.....we should all be preparing for a career change eventually. I have by branching out into general transcription.


Ain't change grand....I'm wondering exactly whose job(s) it's going to save...


Thanks sam - was just thinking about you yesterday
We miss you here. We need people to post with knowledge and sanity (and links that back up things they say). All I'm reading are nasty hate-filled posts and its quite nauseating. Especially when they don't have facts.
O'Reilly yesterday
Did you see O'Reilly yesterday, it was hysterical watching Joys face and hand motions
There were rumors yesterday
that there was a fight of some kind after the show with Elizaeth and Joy. They said today it wasn't true. When Whoopie was talking about off-shore drilling, Joy made a disgusting remark about Palin's pregnant daughter and drilling.
As I posted yesterday -
Obama did not change his numbers to 120,000 - it was clearly a misspeak on the part of that Richardson guy, as earlier in the day he had said it correctly on a radio show.

Show me 1 person in this world who has not misspoke at some point in their life...